Evolution is a valid scientific theory

Monkey boy, i think you have hard time distinguishing between "evidence" and "conclusion" reached based on the same.

Point was not to show exact analogy of evidence, but to question the logic and method applied in reaching the conclusion.

That's ridiculous. But I will answer.

As far as I can see no human originates from Venus and has Earthly paternal and maternal ancestors instead.
It would be illogical to assume that my ancestors fell of the Venus since i have no evidence nor any logical argument to support such idea.

No, it would be correct to say that we don't fully understand tornadoes.

To say tornadoes are bunch of cannonballs fired in the air because otherwise it must be God sneezing is not to give accurate description of phenomena.

No, i do not, but you either fail to read the posts you reply to or willfully ignore.

I gave you an example from physics, where proper calculation based on physical laws and properties of matter is not an assumption but gives accurate picture of preceding events.

You have not shown any observed biological events based on which laws of interaction and changes on macroevolutionary scale could be established.
And I will tell you why: because those exist nowhere other than in the heads of bio-evolutionists.

The turtle may well be where it is. The question remains how it got there.

As noted earlier I will not look into any further links unless you address questions raised for this one.

 

Lifeforms change and they are born from parent life forms. Both are observed. How is that illogical?

Nice. Now just use that same logic to all life and you've got the basis for evolution.

Genetic change has been observed so comparing it to cannonballs is inaccurate.

To put it in Jumbulian terms. I would compare the two monkeys to a 1999 Toyota Highlander and a 2012 Highlander with plug-in synergy drive. Both have 99% of the same parts, but the newer one is more efficient.

What do you consider macroevolution? I consider brocolli a product of macroevloution because it can no longer breed with its parent plant(mustard).

The question is exactly how it got there. The mechanisms can be observed before our eyes.

As I've stated, the fossil evidence shows that the monkey with the rnase1b gene is descended from the old world monkey species that doesn't have the gene. So gene duplication/mutation is a probable cause.

We know that gene duplication/mutation happens in life because it can be observed in the other link that I posted.

 

Change to what degree? Have you seen a woman give bith to a tree?
What is observed is microevolutionary changes and i repeatedly said that it's an undeniable fact.
But to imply that microevolution is proof of macroevolution is nothing short of saing that given enought time turtle can reach Jupiter , since we can observe it moving few feet in front of our own eyes.

No, actually same logic does not support the idea of evolution taking place as evolutionists claim.

Evolutionists make a claim that evolution occurs by means of random chance and natural selection, but they lack any evidence to show how it would be possible.

What kind of change?
Did that monkey (the one you gave link to) evolve that leaf-eating gene in laboratory?
Of course not! It just has it (unlike other monkeys) and the scientist who observes that monkey then goes on to claim how such gene came into existence.

And the evidence for conclusion? None , except the theory of Darwin that tells "this is the way it must have happened since we can't concieve of any other".

Forget the fact that turtles don't have wings or rocket propelled engines. If it moves 20ft per hour given enough time it will reach Mars and that's where it probably came from, since otherwise it would have to be planted here by Santa Claus or fairies.
Brilliant logic!

Yeah, and 2012 Highlander just evolved out of 1999 model by mere random chance and natural selection.

Hehehehe
I have that one in my signature , thank you for bringing it up

This one is very interesting read (from wikipedia btw):

Nicholas Matzke and Paul R. Gross have accused Santa Clausists of using "strategically elastic" definitions of jumped- and flew to the Moon on cannonball when discussing the topic.The actual definition of flew to the Moon on cannonball accepted by scientists is "any jump by Munchausen above the surface of Earth with cannonball tightly held between his legs" (jump, cannonball, Munchausen etc.) and mere jump is "any jump by Munchausen down the stairs or in downward direction." Matzke and Gross state that many Santa Clausist critics define flew to the Moon on cannonball as something that cannot be attained, as these critics describe any observed jump as "just a jump".
Since those critics are too silly (as is evident from their belief in Santa Claus) we must therefore conclude that baron Munchausen indeed flew to the Moon on cannonball. And also anyone who doubts our esteemed baron's wonderfully believable story must by default and conveniently be labeled a Santa Clausist

Yeah, thats right

No monkey boy, fossil evidence doesn't show what you claim it shows. The only thing fossil evidence may show is some ,recorded in stone, image of some sort of a monkey that existed at whatever time in the past.

The scientists look at it and they make a conclusion that it is the ancestor of the monkey they keep in laboratory and reasoning for such conclusion is none other than Darwin's theory not the fossil itself.

But they have failed to show so far how would it be possible for things to happen the way their theory claims it did.

Not that I expect Darwinists to create a man out of Ape in laboratory, but at least some evidence of observed macroevolution must be presented to accept the reasoning that greater changes took place over longer periods of time.

As i noted several times the so called speciation yuo refer to is not an evidence of macroevolution. Just because people who may have whatever unfounded in fact beliefs also note the fact that there is no evidence of macro-evolution is not going to affect my judgement in favor of stating that something that has not been observed exists (just out of concern of being automatically associated with some other people who also note that no macroevoltionary process has been observed yet).

You didn't address questions in regards to this link about leaf eating monkey and i said i will not look up any further links unless you do asnwer questions i asked you regarding this particular link.

What is the point of browsing from one to another link you give if you can't sustain validity of any claim in the first place?

 

Microevolution is evidence for macroevolution much like a couple strides of a runner is evidence that he can run for miles. Plus the runner has left footprints.

If you think microevolution is a fact why is it so unacceptable that this change can be accumulated over time?

You can't be serious.

As seen in the other link that I posted that ties into the monkey link gene duplication/mutation can create genes. So the rnase1b gene could have been created using this known mechanism.

So what would you consider macroevolution again.

So what do you consider evidence for macroevolution?

Do you consider mustard and brocolli the same thing?

The other link explains some of the conclusions that were made in the monkey link.

 

That's right, so if you give it enough time it will reach Jupiter, won't it?

Not more than you are.

No, i won't go to link # 2 unless you answer what is relevant to link #1.
WHy should i go to yet another link to get answers specifically asked in regards to link #1?
If you think link #2 has relevant answers read and quote relevant parts here.
I won't browse any other links unless you address what i asked about current one.

If you made an ass out of the dog i would consider it undisputed evidence of macroevolution.
No, am just kidding.

I have quoted this before (assuming you didn't read it) so will re-post.

It's from exchange between Spetner and Max.

I don't maintain that Spetner is God and all he says is correct by default , not at all, but you should at least read and think about points he makes.
As I note, he may not be 100% accurate in his views but the evolutionists don't impress me as being any more reasonable. Actually impression i get is that his arguments are more reasonable and if you read and think about it you will find out why.

Spetner: I am writing this essay in response to a request from Edward E. Max to comment on his posting The Evolution of Improved Fitness (updated July 12 1999). His essay is an attempt to defend evolutionary theory against attacks by creationists. Although Max scored some points against some alleged creationist arguments, he failed to defend Darwinian evolution against my attack on it in my book Not By Chance. He did not mention my book in his posting, but he referred to my book in his request for my comments. I shall also take this opportunity to clarify some issues in my book about which some readers have written me.

The principle message of evolution is that all life descended with modification from a putative single primitive source. I call this the grand sweep of evolution. The mechanism offered for the process of modification is basically the Darwinian one of a long series of steps of random variation, each followed by natural selection. The variation is generally understood today to be random mutations in the DNA.

That primitive source of life is assumed to be sufficiently simple that it could have arisen from nonliving material by chance. There is no theory today that can account for such an event, but I shall not address that issue here. That is for another place and another time. What is relevant to this discussion is that the requirement that life arose spontaneously sets, at the very least, a stringent upper limit on the complexity and information content of the putative first organism that could reproduce itself, and thus serve as a vehicle from which to launch Darwinian evolution. The issue I address here is the alleged development of all life by the Neo-Darwinian process of random mutation and natural selection, starting from a sufficiently simple beginning.

Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story. No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work. Most evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events, but no one has ever shown it to be so. (Those few evolutionists who hold that macroevolution is really different from microevolution have changed their story several times since they first came out with it, and their mechanism is so fuzzy that I cannot tell what it is. John Maynard Smith seems to be of a similar opinion.)

For the grand process of evolution to work, long sequences of “beneficial” mutations must be possible, each building on the previous one and conferring a selective advantage on the organism. The process must be able to lead not only from one species to another, but to the entire advance of life from a simple beginning to the full complexity of life today. There must be a long series of possible mutations, each of which conferring a selective advantage on the organism so that natural selection can make it take over the population. Moreover, there must be not just one, but a great many such series.

The chain must be continuous in that at each stage a change of a single base pair somewhere in the genome can lead to a more adaptive organism in some environmental context. That is, it should be possible to continue to climb an “adaptive” hill, one base change after another, without getting hung up on a local adaptive maximum. No one has ever shown this to be possible.

Now one might say that if evolution were hung up on a local Maximum, a large genetic change like a recombination or a transposition could bring it to another higher peak. Large adaptive changes are, however, highly improbable. They are orders of magnitude less probable than getting an adaptive change with a single nucleotide substitution, which is itself improbable. No one has shown this to be possible either.

Moreover, as I have noted in my book, the large mutations such as recombinations and transpositions are mediated by special enzymes and are executed with precision - not the sort of doings one would expect of events that were supposed to be the products of chance. Evolutionists chose the mechanism of randomness, by the way, because we can’t think of any other way beneficial mutations might occur in the absence of a law that might govern them. Genetic rearrangements may not be really random at all. They do not seem to qualify as the random mutations Neo-Darwinists can invoke whenever needed to escape from a local adaptive Maximum.

Evolutionists can argue, and rightly so, that we have no way of observing long series of mutations, since our observation time is limited to a relatively short interval. Our genetic observations over the past 100 years are more like a snapshot of evolution rather than a representative interval in which we can search for the required long series of changes. But our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.

Max: I agree that there are no definitive examples where a macroevolutionary change (such as the development of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals) has been shown to result from a specific chain of mutations. And I agree with your further comment that “we have no way of observing a long series of mutations.” But you go on to say that “our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.” An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would be that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations did NOT occur.

Spetner: Now Ed, that’s ridiculous! Those two statements are not symmetrical. I don’t have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT. You, who are basing your theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist. You are obliged to show an existence. I am not obliged to prove a non-existence.
[LMS: IN MAX’S POSTING HE MOVED THIS REMARK OF MINE TO A LATER POINT IN THE DIALOGUE. I ORIGINALLY HAD IT HERE, AND HERE IS WHERE IT BELONGS.]

Max: In the absence of conclusive data defining such a series, if we want to distinguish between various hypotheses to explain the origin of species we must rely on other data, such as from various laboratory model systems that show adaptations in short enough timeframes that we can observe them. Then we must extrapolate as best we can the information learned from these model systems to the questions of species origins. This extrapolation from laboratory model systems to systems unobservable in the laboratory is the method of science common to medicine, astronomy, chemistry, meteorology, physics, etc.

I think there is some semantic confusion here about the word “justification” in Spetner’s sentence “But our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.” He is correct that acceptance of the NDT implies the belief that a series of successive mutations (including duplications and translocations) occurred in the evolution of an ancient primitive genome into the complex genome of a modern species. Because we can access only genomes of modern (or very recent) species, we can never obtain the direct evidence—i.e., a complete list of those mutations—that some anti-evolutionists (e.g. Behe) seem to think would be necessary to support NDT.
[LMS: MAX’S STATEMENT HERE IS A DISTORTION OF MY ARGUMENT INTO AN EXTREME POSITION. I NEITHER SAID NOR IMPLIED THAT EVOLUTIONISTS MUST “OBTAIN...A COMPLETE LIST OF THOSE MUTATIONS” REQUIRED FOR NDT. I DO MAINTAIN, HOWEVER, THAT THEY SHOULD AT LEAST ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SHOWING THAT NDT IS REASONABLY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. THEY HAVE NOT DONE THAT. THE MECHANISM OF NDT CONSISTS OF TWO BASIC STEPS. AN ADAPTIVE MUTATION MUST BE ACHIEVED, AND THEN NATURAL SELECTION MUST OPERATE TO ENABLE IT TO TAKE OVER THE POPULATION. EVOLUTIONISTS ARE OBLIGATED TO SHOW THAT BOTH THESE STEPS ARE REASONABLY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE IF THEY ARE TO MAKE A CASE FOR NDT. MOST OF THEIR EFFORTS ALONG THESE LINES HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO ARGUING FOR NATURAL SELECTION. THEY USUALLY DO NOT DEAL WITH THE PROBABILITY OF ACHIEVING AN ADAPTIVE MUTATION. THEY MERELY ASSUME ONE WILL BE AVAILABLE WHENEVER IT IS NEEDED.]

In the absence of such direct evidence, it seems pointless to argue which side is “obliged” to provide what indirect evidence; certainly neither side can hope for anything close to “proof.” Although Spetner denies that he is “obliged to prove a non-existence” of such a chain of mutations, his whole effort in the correspondence seems to be directed to just that aim. Evolutionists have the job of defending the reasonableness of such a series of mutations. I believe that Spetner would agree with this.
[LMS: RIGHT. EVOLUTIONISTS DO HAVE THAT JOB AS AN OBLIGATION, AND THEY HAVE FAILED TO FULFILL IT. I AM NOT OBLIGED TO PROVE A NON-EXISTENCE. BUT IN MY BOOK, I HAVE MADE A GOOD CASE FOR THE UNREASONABLENESS OF THE EVOLUTIONISTS’ TACIT ASSUMPTIONS OF THE UNIVERSAL AVAILABILITY OF ADAPTIVE MUTATIONS, AND I HAVE GIVEN SOME OF THOSE ARGUMENTS IN THIS DIALOGUE.]

Spetner: But the argument against Darwinian theory is considerably stronger than that. The theory requires there be a vast number of possible point mutations which, coupled with natural selection, can produce the evolutionary advances that could produce the grand sweep of evolution. Because there must be a large number of qualifying mutations, at least a few of them should have been observed in some of the many genetics laboratories around the world. All the mutations in these long series must not only confer selective advantage on the organism but they must, on the average, also contribute to the information, or complexity, increase that surely distinguishes present-day life from the putative primitive organism.

These mutations must have whatever characteristics are necessary for them to serve as elements of the grand sweep of evolution. Thus, for a mutation to qualify as a representative member of the required multitude of long series that are supposed to produce evolution, it must bring new information not just to the genome of the organism, but the information must be new to the entire biocosm. The horizontal transfer of a gene from one species to another is not information new to the biocosm. To show evolution in action, one must at least demonstrate examples of a mutation that can serve as a prototype of those required by the theory. Such a mutation must be one that could be a contributing member of a series of mutations that could lead to the vast increase in information required by the theory. Thus, for example, a mutation that disables a repressor gene causing a constitutive synthesis of an enzyme might be advantageous to an organism under special circumstances, but the disabling of a gene does not represent the mutations required by the theory.

Max devotes a good portion of his essay to refuting what he calls the “creationist” argument against evolution. Although some opponents of evolutionary theory may have advanced the arguments he attacks, those arguments are in large measure straw men that Max busies himself with refuting. If some creationists have claimed that all mutations are harmful, they would be wrong, but Max’s observation that there are mutations that are beneficial, while true, is hardly a telling argument for evolution.

 

I think I remembered you saying that Spetner was wrong after your discussion with Skism.

I picked this from what Spetner had to say.

Thus, for example, a mutation that disables a repressor gene causing a constitutive synthesis of an enzyme might be advantageous to an organism under special circumstances, but the disabling of a gene does not represent the mutations required by the theory.

He doesn't mention the disabling/mutating of duplicated genes which does increase the information required by the theory.

What are your thoughts on this mechanism that can increase information?

Our genome is full of duplicated genes and also mutations. Blue eyes for example is the dissabling of the gene that encodes for pigment. If we have duplicated genes and mutations. Why is it so improbable that one of the duplicated genes could mutate to create new information for increased survival?

Also, with only 23,000 encoding genes in our genome only a few changes can make a big difference.

 

Yes, at some point Skizm advanced well founded argument (in which i couldn't find a fault) which made me think that Spetner was wrong in his calculations.

But I don't think Spetner is entirely at fault as far as the line of logic involved in referenced exchange with Max where Max had all the opportunities to challenge him back.

Anyway, proving Spetner wrong or right is not purpose I quoted him here, i don't hold anyone's opinion to be infallible, just gave a comparative read to see into reasoning of two men, one evolutionist the other is not.

If you read it without bias you can't avoid getting an impression that Max is too busy doctoring up the evidence, twisting argument and making constant attacks against what he calls "creationism" while he avoids responding directly to challenges mounted by Spetner and at some point claims that it is Spetner's obligation to prove non-existence (someting that Munchausen Okiefreak loved to repeat over and over on these threads, along with some of his supporters).

No, he doesn't. I wish he was member of this forum so we could ask him.

As to my thought, I have to study the actual observed event whereby the increase of information by mutation did occur.
Your link about monkeys did NOT give such evidence. It was just an evidence of two different monkey genoms with arbitrary assumption made as fas as mechanism responsible for such mutation was involved.

 

You have added this after I posted my reply and you still avoid answering any of the questions I asked you.

You say our genom is full of duplicated genes and also mutations.
I say our genom is an extremely complicated chemical structure.
The fact is it exists. And I have no idea how it evolved to the point we can observe on any given organism.

You say why is it so improbable that one of the duplicated genes could mutate to create new information for increased survival?
And I ask why do you think it happened by random chance and natural selection, what makes YOU think that it was the mechanism responsible?

Instead of answering my pointed question, you digress by asking me why I shouldn't believe it happened the way you say it did without you answering what evidence you have that makes you think it happened so?

You so far have shown no such evidence and the example of monkeys has only confirmed my opinion that you confuse evidence of mechanism involved with evidence of existence of various species and genoms which is no evidence of mechanism responsible for it's emergence.

Yes, few changes in genes can make big difference. The difference between monkey gene and human gene is miniscule. But nobody disputes it.
Just like nobody disputes that there are many similarities between Toyota LS and LX.

What is at question is what mechanism is responsible for one or another gene structure to emerge into existence?

You say you know and insist that the mechanism responsible is random chance and natural selection.

I say I don't know and doubt your explanation unless you show relevant to your claim evidence of macroevolution and not just evidence of end product without any observable process to support your claim of it's emergence.

"Brokkoli and mustard" are no proof of theory that Homo Sapience evolved out of archaic single cell by means of random chance and natural selection in a matter of few billions of years.

 

I didn't intend to add more to my post after you responded.

We can see the genome change though. Mutations and duplications can be observed. Why can't this be considered mechanisms and evidence for macroevolution?

Natural selection is obvious to me. Gene mutation and duplication by random chance is less obvious, but it does happen so I consider it as evidence. That doen't mean there couldn't be more behind it however.

I tried to answer you, but there isn't an answer to your question. The duplication on the genes in the monkey was not observed. That doesn't mean that duplication can't be considered as a possible mechanism however.

How can you say that there is no evidence for the mechanism that is responsible for the change in genomes? It has been observed.

You're talking about the origins of life. I'm just talking about how two species can have a common ancestor.

Don't you think that Brocolli and mustard can be considered as evidence since it has gene mutations and duplications like the rest of life?

I would atleast consider it as proof of speciation within plant species.

 

Let's stop here and wait for you to substantiate this claim you keep repeating without showing anything in support.

If you think evidence of two different genoms in monkeys is an observation of mechanism responsible for it's emergence, then i have a gas stove as an observation of how it evolved into itself out of rudenoodle.

 

When did I ever say it was observed in the monkeys

 

Ok, then let's start with observation.
Please post a link to study where it shows clearly what was observed and that it is what you say it is.

 

I already posted one a loooong time ago.

 

O.K. Here's a link to the nylon digesting bacteria.
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

I found my original link too.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

 

But didn't Spetner adress this already? And I thought you had something to overcome at least his objections which are there already

Now you are going to tell me that observed adaptation of bacteria is a proof of macroevolutionary change taking place in the long run

How many times we have been over it?

 

I think we've hit a wall. Before we end this can you atleast tell me what you would consider as macroevolution?

Well I can say I learn a lot. I hope you did too.:cheers2:

 

Large evolutionary step, of course. Hence word macro as opposed to micro.
I thought it was obvious.

Now, how do you specifically define the term?

That's a good question. Where is the invisible line that separates micro from macro as far as evolution is concerned?

I would go with Spetner on this and quote him here once again:

No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work. Most evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events, but no one has ever shown it to be so. (Those few evolutionists who hold that macroevolution is really different from microevolution have changed their story several times since they first came out with it, and their mechanism is so fuzzy that I cannot tell what it is. John Maynard Smith seems to be of a similar opinion.)

For the grand process of evolution to work, long sequences of “beneficial” mutations must be possible, each building on the previous one and conferring a selective advantage on the organism. The process must be able to lead not only from one species to another, but to the entire advance of life from a simple beginning to the full complexity of life today. There must be a long series of possible mutations, each of which conferring a selective advantage on the organism so that natural selection can make it take over the population. Moreover, there must be not just one, but a great many such series.

The chain must be continuous in that at each stage a change of a single base pair somewhere in the genome can lead to a more adaptive organism in some environmental context. That is, it should be possible to continue to climb an “adaptive” hill, one base change after another, without getting hung up on a local adaptive maximum. No one has ever shown this to be possible.

Now one might say that if evolution were hung up on a local Maximum, a large genetic change like a recombination or a transposition could bring it to another higher peak. Large adaptive changes are, however, highly improbable. They are orders of magnitude less probable than getting an adaptive change with a single nucleotide substitution, which is itself improbable. No one has shown this to be possible either.

Moreover, as I have noted in my book, the large mutations such as recombinations and transpositions are mediated by special enzymes and are executed with precision - not the sort of doings one would expect of events that were supposed to be the products of chance. Evolutionists chose the mechanism of randomness, by the way, because we can’t think of any other way beneficial mutations might occur in the absence of a law that might govern them. Genetic rearrangements may not be really random at all. They do not seem to qualify as the random mutations Neo-Darwinists can invoke whenever needed to escape from a local adaptive Maximum.

Evolutionists can argue, and rightly so, that we have no way of observing long series of mutations, since our observation time is limited to a relatively short interval. Our genetic observations over the past 100 years are more like a snapshot of evolution rather than a representative interval in which we can search for the required long series of changes. But our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.

Max: I agree that there are no definitive examples where a macroevolutionary change (such as the development of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals) has been shown to result from a specific chain of mutations. And I agree with your further comment that “we have no way of observing a long series of mutations.” But you go on to say that “our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.” An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would be that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations did NOT occur.

Spetner: Now Ed, that’s ridiculous! Those two statements are not symmetrical. I don’t have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT. You, who are basing your theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist. You are obliged to show an existence. I am not obliged to prove a non-existence.
[LMS: IN MAX’S POSTING HE MOVED THIS REMARK OF MINE TO A LATER POINT IN THE DIALOGUE. I ORIGINALLY HAD IT HERE, AND HERE IS WHERE IT BELONGS.]

Max: In the absence of conclusive data defining such a series, if we want to distinguish between various hypotheses to explain the origin of species we must rely on other data, such as from various laboratory model systems that show adaptations in short enough timeframes that we can observe them. Then we must extrapolate as best we can the information learned from these model systems to the questions of species origins. This extrapolation from laboratory model systems to systems unobservable in the laboratory is the method of science common to medicine, astronomy, chemistry, meteorology, physics, etc.

I think there is some semantic confusion here about the word “justification” in Spetner’s sentence “But our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.” He is correct that acceptance of the NDT implies the belief that a series of successive mutations (including duplications and translocations) occurred in the evolution of an ancient primitive genome into the complex genome of a modern species. Because we can access only genomes of modern (or very recent) species, we can never obtain the direct evidence—i.e., a complete list of those mutations—that some anti-evolutionists (e.g. Behe) seem to think would be necessary to support NDT.
[LMS: MAX’S STATEMENT HERE IS A DISTORTION OF MY ARGUMENT INTO AN EXTREME POSITION. I NEITHER SAID NOR IMPLIED THAT EVOLUTIONISTS MUST “OBTAIN...A COMPLETE LIST OF THOSE MUTATIONS” REQUIRED FOR NDT. I DO MAINTAIN, HOWEVER, THAT THEY SHOULD AT LEAST ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SHOWING THAT NDT IS REASONABLY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. THEY HAVE NOT DONE THAT. THE MECHANISM OF NDT CONSISTS OF TWO BASIC STEPS. AN ADAPTIVE MUTATION MUST BE ACHIEVED, AND THEN NATURAL SELECTION MUST OPERATE TO ENABLE IT TO TAKE OVER THE POPULATION. EVOLUTIONISTS ARE OBLIGATED TO SHOW THAT BOTH THESE STEPS ARE REASONABLY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE IF THEY ARE TO MAKE A CASE FOR NDT. MOST OF THEIR EFFORTS ALONG THESE LINES HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO ARGUING FOR NATURAL SELECTION. THEY USUALLY DO NOT DEAL WITH THE PROBABILITY OF ACHIEVING AN ADAPTIVE MUTATION. THEY MERELY ASSUME ONE WILL BE AVAILABLE WHENEVER IT IS NEEDED.]

In the absence of such direct evidence, it seems pointless to argue which side is “obliged” to provide what indirect evidence; certainly neither side can hope for anything close to “proof.” Although Spetner denies that he is “obliged to prove a non-existence” of such a chain of mutations, his whole effort in the correspondence seems to be directed to just that aim. Evolutionists have the job of defending the reasonableness of such a series of mutations. I believe that Spetner would agree with this.
[LMS: RIGHT. EVOLUTIONISTS DO HAVE THAT JOB AS AN OBLIGATION, AND THEY HAVE FAILED TO FULFILL IT. I AM NOT OBLIGED TO PROVE A NON-EXISTENCE. BUT IN MY BOOK, I HAVE MADE A GOOD CASE FOR THE UNREASONABLENESS OF THE EVOLUTIONISTS’ TACIT ASSUMPTIONS OF THE UNIVERSAL AVAILABILITY OF ADAPTIVE MUTATIONS, AND I HAVE GIVEN SOME OF THOSE ARGUMENTS IN THIS DIALOGUE.]

Spetner: But the argument against Darwinian theory is considerably stronger than that. The theory requires there be a vast number of possible point mutations which, coupled with natural selection, can produce the evolutionary advances that could produce the grand sweep of evolution. Because there must be a large number of qualifying mutations, at least a few of them should have been observed in some of the many genetics laboratories around the world. All the mutations in these long series must not only confer selective advantage on the organism but they must, on the average, also contribute to the information, or complexity, increase that surely distinguishes present-day life from the putative primitive organism.

These mutations must have whatever characteristics are necessary for them to serve as elements of the grand sweep of evolution. Thus, for a mutation to qualify as a representative member of the required multitude of long series that are supposed to produce evolution, it must bring new information not just to the genome of the organism, but the information must be new to the entire biocosm. The horizontal transfer of a gene from one species to another is not information new to the biocosm. To show evolution in action, one must at least demonstrate examples of a mutation that can serve as a prototype of those required by the theory. Such a mutation must be one that could be a contributing member of a series of mutations that could lead to the vast increase in information required by the theory. Thus, for example, a mutation that disables a repressor gene causing a constitutive synthesis of an enzyme might be advantageous to an organism under special circumstances, but the disabling of a gene does not represent the mutations required by the theory.

Max devotes a good portion of his essay to refuting what he calls the “creationist” argument against evolution. Although some opponents of evolutionary theory may have advanced the arguments he attacks, those arguments are in large measure straw men that Max busies himself with refuting. If some creationists have claimed that all mutations are harmful, they would be wrong, but Max’s observation that there are mutations that are beneficial, while true, is hardly a telling argument for evolution.

 

So you believe that macroevolution is as Spetner says

"The process must be able to lead not only from one species to another, but to the entire advance of life from a simple beginning to the full complexity of life today.

Under this assumption an ape could tranform into a human before our eyes and it wouldn't pass the test for macroevolution. Where's the grey area?

 

Actually at this particular point I must admit that my knowledge of the subject is not enough to either confirm or deny his specific claim.

But since yours obviously even less than Spetner's, one can rely on your reasoning to form definitive conclusion even less.

If it was up to me I would organise a competition where i would bring together the brightest minds of the world and tell them to either decisevly prove or disprove this theory and I would give the winner a prize great enough to motivate the really britest. I would give it enough time to produce credible result.

In absence of such, i must rely on what i know and what i can reflect on the subject based on what i know.
And as i said my knowledge is not enough to give definitive answer to some of the questions asked.
However, that alone is not basis to accept the theory as valid. And your having even less knowledge that that of it's critic can hardly make me doubt it less.

 

That would be an interesting contest. I'm sure a lot could be learned from it. In the end all I care about is the evidence.

I've been reading about Karl Popper and have found he has a similar view to yours.